Last night's channel 4 programme the Global Warming Swindle was a must see .

I dont think it could be dismissed as a loud of boys funded by Exonn, and many of the points it raised were very interesting .Mainly,does co2 levels drive climate warming and they seemed to give a very plausible answer...so Im now totally confused.

All I can offer at this stage is what George Monbiot says about this Doc and its makers

"surely we’ve seen the last of the cranks and charalatans who had managed to grab so much attention with their claims that global warming wasn’t happening?

Some chance. A company called WAG TV is currently completing a 90-minute documentary for Channel 4 called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Manmade climate change, the channel tells us, is “a lie … the biggest scam of modern times. The truth is that Global Warming is a multi-billion dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media. ... The fact is that CO2 has no proven link to global temperatures … solar activity is far more likely to be the culprit.”(10)

So it’s the same old conspiracy theory that we’ve been hearing from the denial industry for the past ten years, and it carries as much scientific weight as the contention that the Twin Towers were brought down by missiles. The programme’s thesis revolves around the deniers’ favourite canard: that the “hockey-stick graph” showing rising global temperatures is based on a statistical mistake made in a paper by the scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes(11). What it will not be showing is that their results have now been repeated several times by other scientists using different statistical methods(12); that the paper claiming to have exposed the mistake has been comprehensively debunked(13) and that the lines of evidence used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes are just a few among hundreds demonstrating that 20th century temperatures were anomalous.

The decision to commission this programme seems even odder when you discover who is making it. In 1997, the director, Martin Durkin, produced a very similar series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamt up by environmentalists. It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and to edit their answers to change their meaning. Following complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that “the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing” and that they had been “misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”(14) Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has ever made. Are institutional memories really so short?

So now the whole weary business of pointing out that the evidence against manmade climate change is sparse and unable to withstand critical scrutiny while the evidence in favour is overwhelming and repeatedly confirmed must begin all over again. How often do scientists have to remind the media that a handful of cherry-picked studies does not amount to the refutation of an entire discipline?"

I am going to have to review this more closely.I have always known that the Sun is involved. What is of concern is the outcome....and on this they seem to suggest that we will just experience an adjustmentbut nothing to worry about.

This is such a big and important issue that we need this to be taken up in a public debate where this is hammered out .

This programme could do a lot of damage if it was in reality misleading....We need to get this sorted once and for all ....NOW !

I for one hope their right...though I can't bet on it.

Last edited: 9-03-2007 10:10:31 AM

Quote

Yes that was a very interesting documentary indeed. It was clearly very one-sided, but then that same accusation can be levelled at the likes of Gore and his Inconvenient Truth. It would be nice to see a more balanced look made by a documentary team with no agenda.

But I must admit that I'm fairly convinced that CO2 emissions are not the main cause of global warming (I've never been convinced it was anyway). The fact that we've seen much higher (and lower) temperatures in medieval times is strong evidence of that in my opinion. The climate is clearly always changing, and there seems to be no strong evidence that supports the notion that increased levels of CO2 can cause climate change.

Personally I think the CO2 problem is a bit if a distraction and that there are far more urgent issues that need addressing which are not getting anywhere near the amount of attention they should be. The destruction of our rainforests being a prime example - something which is absolutely criminal in my mind! Perhaps CO2 emmissions wouldn't be a problem at all if we still had most of our rainforests which act as huge carbon sinks.

Anyway, as John says, hopefully this will lead to a more public debate.

Quote

Just to give anyone whose interested to try and capture the "bigger picture "on this one heres an interesting wee article that throws a bit of light on the man Martin Durkin who made the doc and also something about some of the propositions made ..... decide for yourself.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/dominic_lawson/article2318675.ece

Last edited: 9-03-2007 08:31:23 PM

Quote

Namaste all,

I thought it was pretty poor in a few ways. Most of all it strayed off the science and more than once launched into an attack on environmentalists and those who have green values. Also thought it was excessively dumbed down at times and over simplified.

I had another couple of points which came to mind last night while watching it, but can I remember them right now? Of course not. Hopefully it will be repeated and I can give it a second viewing to see if any of those point come back to mind.

In related news, have you read of the protests in Brazil this week in response to the Bush visit and what seems to be the start of monopolising South American ethanol from the sugar cane crop. Eight of ten cars in Brazil seemingly run on this and the effect of the US buying up the majority of the produce is likely to drive up domestic prices for those in Brazil and probably also lead to more slash and burning of the rain forest.

Om Shanti
Neil

Quote

Hi Neil
yes indeed what is assembling on the bio fuel front is not a pretty picture and a poor omen for the future .Cant say it wasn't predictable though.

On the documentary..there were a few things that i thought we're probably fudging it a bit ...and indeed if you read the link I've just supplied then youl see that Durkin apparently as an RCP guy( a dubious lot if ever there were any) seems to have it in for environmentalists.
However I must say that I have experienced mass group psychosiis myself and so "Movements" can develop certain dogmatic tendancies . Look at such issue as AIDS where there are a lot of dubious notions held quite blindly by the "mainstream".

So it was room for thought and I'm one of those who likes to be open minded.Really a much greater indepth debate is needed as we have to get this clear in the "public psyche",

Whenever programmes like this come up they will have a marked destabilising affect...

Also recently I heard on the news that young children are actually displaying stress over this issue.....this is just not a good place to be and we need to
be clear on this....so lets find out
.I am going to urge George Monbiot to make a reply point for point on the main contentions....rather than what I have found so far which is a rather non specific reply....perhaps because he's fed up of doing it....but it needs to be seen

John

Last edited: 10-03-2007 12:16:46 AM

Quote

If you don't live in the UK or you missed the program on Thursday, you can watch it here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&hl=en

Quote

Thanks for the link Andy.
It's really interesting, here in NZ we don't see much about global warming, but the way I read so many posts is that a lot of people have made up their minds and nothing is going to sway them. Pity really, I would really like to get to the bottom of this, problem is, not many people are in the middle, most are one side or the other.

Quote

Hmmm not too sure what that means Jon.

If the road dictates I either turn left or turn right ....how do I get to where I want to go if I go straight ahead.

It is very frustrating I know as a;ll; you need is onre little part of the puzzle t5o not fit and the whole propersition falls apart,

Can I just say that last night on UKHistory they ve done an all day on this and I think D Attenboroughs Climate Crisi answered the anomally about the graph.Theirs showed how taking into account the amount the Sun is driving temperature it clearly shows that as the Suns aoutput pips the Co2 and the temp still rises.Also it is quite striking and I think pretty irrefutable , so sadly Im having to go back to my original stance ,

Sorry boys and girls ..but its definitely onin my books ,,,,until the next graph says otherwise

Quote

Whether the sun, the moon, the boy next door or mankind as whole are responsible for the rising temperatures on the planet it does not negate the fact that there is something wrong with the world.

Whilst factual evidence serves a purpose, I am not inspired into action by the latest movie/article/evidence etc (nor am I suggesting that anyone else here is), but rather the guiding consciousness that flows through the core of each of us.

Evidence and opinion are always subject to distortion. What was true yesterday is disproved today. Information and evidence have their uses, but unfortunately, they all too often sends humanity into a whirling chaotic confusion (how convenient for these so called authorities). Why do we look to these authorities for guidance? The true discerning authority lies within ourselves.

Trinity
x

Quote

I watched the programme and my immediate thoughts were ...interesting but hardly conclusive.Whether or not climate change is fact or fiction no one can deny land, air and sea pollution, landfill issues, endangered animals, deforestation and our vast consumption of the earth's resources etc etc

Look at Hurricane Katrina and the flooding for example. One newspaper article I read claimed that huge areas of natural floodplains around New Orlean had been cleared and built on. We can't prove that the hurricane was a cause of climate change but I do wonder if human impact here made the after effects far worse than if the mangroves had remained intact.

Kate
GreenFinder

Quote

Namaste all,

The program was repeated tonight on More 4. At an hour and half in length it was quite long, but I watched about half of it again. One thing that struck me was the use of language in it. Quotes such as "each day news reports grow more apocalyptic" (it was being quite serious). In the visual media (tv, film, etc.) language is still more important than what is being presented visually. Just watch the news, the visual content is not half as important as the language that colours it. The most colourful example of course has to be Fox news ("We report, you decide" - how can they say that with a straight face?).

There were also points such as saying the environmental movement is the "strongest force there is for preventing development in third world countries". Now from what I understand of social and economic forces in the world today that is the biggest pile of BS I have heard in a long time. That is like a line straight out of fox news!

It also said that there were bigger sources of C02 than industry, one of the biggest ones being cattle. Yet how can you say that cattle is not part of modern industry? With 15 million animals being slaughtered daily in the USA alone, who is to blame for cattle being such a high source of C02? The program presented this as if modern "civilisation" was separate from the enoromous amount of cattle in the world today, as if this was a natural phenomenon.

One point I did agree with was that scientists, politicians and the media have a "vested interest in creating panic". I can't argue much with that, and nothing illustrates that better than the alledged threat of modern terrorism. It doesn't take much insight to see how the push for a more green existence could be easily manipulated and abused by governments and global business.

I strongly agree with Katie when she says that 'interesting but hardly conclusive.Whether or not climate change is fact or fiction no one can deny land, air and sea pollution, landfill issues, endangered animals, deforestation and our vast consumption of the earth's resources etc'. It seems that many of those who don't agree with global warming thinking also hold the perception that it is ok to continue as we have been. As if living in a world full of toxins and pollutants, exploitation of the natural environment, and destruction of just about every eco-system, is an acceptable manner of existance. Who in their right mind would suggest that?

Om Shanti
Neil

Last edited: 13-03-2007 02:36:45 AM

Quote

...

Last edited: 14-03-2007 11:42:00 PM

Quote

Neil,

Interestingly, I think the CO2 theory of climate change, is just a theory. I do not believe there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to drive such effects. You can put up as many graphs as you like and it proves nothing unless someone can demonstrate a causal link. There appears to be no way of testing this theory either - which makes it ideal. Why?
Government understand CO2 emissions and what you have to do to drive them down. These things are precisely the things that stop us destroying the planet. It is therefore good for governments to believe because we really are behaving in an unacceptable way and we need to mend our ways. As I recall exPM Thatcher was credited with promoting the concept as a way of promoting nuclear power. If you look at nuclear power logically, it is an alternative to burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels release toxins into the atmosphere such as mercury and arsenic and surprisingly radiation. For the penalty of such a small amount of toxic nuclear waste, that hopefully can be managed and disposed of with minimal damage, a great deal of toxins do not get distributed about the planet. Of course forest fires and volcanoes will still release these toxins.

I found this link fairly convincing http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Development/devnine.html

A power plant would use one cubic metre of uranium - equivalent to 2.6 million tons of coal or 2 million tons of oil (10 supertankers worth)

So I'd take the whole package. Nuclear Power and reduced CO2 emissions, even though I think the global warming theory is flawed.

Just a small point. Global warming is supposed to make the ice caps melt and interfere with the Gulf stream. The theory is that it will make the UK colder. Without the Gulf stream the UK would be as cold as Newfoundland and Finland would be uninhabitable. Global warming will make us a damn site colder. So yet another good reason for supporting the theory!

Cheers,

Nick

Quote

As I've said, I can't make up my mind about this, however, there is a certain logic to the fact that we produce more CO2 and we have less trees, and also we are pulling huge amounts of oil from under the surface of the earth and burning it. There is something really out of balance here, and I believe mankind, in the not too distant future, will discover the consequences of the abuse he is doing to the planet.

Quote

I think in regards to this issue perhaps more than any other the role of acounter argument only in real terms ends up as inertia and non action . the consequences of which are just unthinkable.

Be it "man made or natural" such a reductionist propersition tends to subtley control and determine the answer . That is to say we answer one or the other and either consequently do nothing or something.

The answer in general is both, but in the more specific we must revaluate and acknowledge our place in the universe, as one not above but with all life . ,and as many have said here the answer comes from within.Our own innate sensibilities will raise the alarm if we do not constantly have them monitored and gagged by the propaganda of those who have a vested interest in " business as usual"

Global Warming is a symptom and not a cause and is a manifestation of a system out of balance ...and as the big players in this we cannot shirk our collective responsibility.

Also let us beware that this is early days and the ball game will change many times yet.I think this self delusion of continued growth whilst "saving the planet at the same time is going to be found out for what it is ....pish!....(scots for bollocks!)

Last edited: 18-03-2007 07:57:16 PM

Quote